Daniels v. Wilson
| Decision Date | 14 May 1875 |
| Parties | Milton J. Daniels v. Samuel Wilson |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Action on a promissory note for $ 280.79, bearing date June 1, 1870 made by defendant, and payable one year after date to Tunis S. Slingerland, or bearer, with interest at twelve per cent per annum from date until paid. Defence, that the note was given without consideration, and was given in contravention of the statute against usury. At the trial in the district court for Olmsted county, before Mitchell, J., it appeared that plaintiff bought the note of Slingerland on May 9, 1874 paying him therefor $ 150, and that the plaintiff bought and paid for the note in due course of business, and without knowledge of the consideration for which it was given. The defendant then introduced evidence tending to prove that Slingerland, the payee, held a mortgage upon defendant's farm, bearing interest at twelve per cent per annum, which he threatened to foreclose; that on account of this threatening the note in suit was given by defendant to Slingerland, "for extra interest on this $ 2,000 mortgage, above twelve per cent.;" that the amount of this note was never indorsed upon the mortgage, or credited or applied on the mortgage debt, and that there was no other consideration for the note. At the close of the evidence, the judge directed a verdict for plaintiff, for the amount claimed in the complaint, to which ruling the defendant excepted. The jury brought in a verdict for plaintiff, for $ 424.40, judgment was entered thereon, and defendant appealed.
Judgment affirmed.
Lloyd Barber, for appellant.
Chas. C. Willson, for respondent.
This is an action upon a promissory note made by defendant to one Slingerland, on June 1, 1870, and by Slingerland sold indorsed and delivered to plaintiff, in "due course of business," before maturity, for consideration of one hundred and fifty dollars. The amount of the principal and accrued interest of the note, at the time of its sale and indorsement, was a little over three hundred dollars. When plaintiff purchased the note, he had no knowledge of the nature of its consideration. The defence was that the note was executed solely as evidence of an agreement to pay interest in excess of twelve per cent., and that it was therefore void, under § 1, ch. 23, Gen. Stat., which provides that "no contract for a greater rate of interest than twelve dollars upon one...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
The Citizens' National Bank of Kansas v. Donnell
...in consideration of past forbearance, is held to be free from usury, though it may be unenforcible for want of consideration. Daniels v. Wilson, 21 Minn. 530. (8) In this case it was believed, when the notes were that by stipulating that the aggregate interest should be less than eight per ......
-
Endres v. First National Bank of Breckenridge
...future use of money, and as interest for such future use, not as a payment of interest for the past use of money. In the case of Daniels v. Wilson, 21 Minn. 530, it was held from the pleadings and evidence it was plain that the only contract entered into was a contract to pay interest for t......
-
Strickland v. First State Bank of Balaton
...St. 471; Patterson v. Wyman, 142 Minn. 70, 170 N.W. 928. It is not usury to pay excessive interest for the past use of money. Daniels v. Wilson, 21 Minn. 530; v. Wellcome, supra. One who voluntarily pays usurious interest may not maintain an action to recover it, while one against whom a us......
-
United States Nat. Bank v. McNair
...to cases where the note was issued without any consideration, though it may be purchased by the indorsee for less than its face. Daniels v. Wilson, 21 Minn. 530. propositions are also sustained (among a wealth of authorities) by 1 Daniel, Neg. Inst. (4th Ed.) §§ 758, 758b; Allaire v. Hartsh......